Recent Comments

Prev  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  Next

Comments 75951 to 76000:

75951. Albatross at 15:56 PM on 1 September 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       jyushchyshyn @56, The Alberta government is hardly a shining example of environmental stewardship-- you chose to highlight/cherry-pick one example (i.e., flaring of natural gas). They are still stalling on the grizzly bear, despite very good science that indicates that this umbrella species should be classified as threatened. Go to Google Earth and look at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains-- note the huge swaths of clear cutting, and the rest of the province has been sliced and diced by access roads and seismic lines. You should also know that those canons are not effective and have failed on more than one occasion in the past-- how someone can defend tailing ponds is beyond me, and I doubt very much that you would like a tailing pond or a tar sands plant anywhere near your house or city of residence. Also it is ludicrous to try and claim that the oil form the tar sands is ethical because in addition to the points made above it neglects the following: 1) The ethical travesty of the negative impacts that this development is having and will continue to have on the First Nations. So sad that some people believe that the human rights of First Nations is not important in this. 2) The fact that the Alberta Government is quite candid that if the USA do not take the oil then they are happy to sell it to whoever is interested, and that includes China who has a very dubious human rights record. 3) The ethical travesty of destroying huge swaths of the Boreal forest and in the process potentially wiping out the Caribou, to mention but one species negatively affected by the development. That is effectively stealing from future generations folks. The tar sands are a blight on Canada's reputation, it is a national disgrace and an embarrassment. And last but not least, a sign of how truly addicted we are to FFs that we have to resort to such extreme and energy intensive measures to extract dirty oil to continue to feed our habit. How myopic and selfish.
75952. muoncounter at 13:52 PM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       Joseph, I simply objected to turning a thread that deals with a wide range of important topics (those bold paragraph headings in the original post) into a testing ground for various specific predictions. I don't know how you read that as 'I shouldn't question anything.' Nor did I apply the words 'self-appointed' etc to anyone in particular. As to your claim that 'criticism is not welcome,' nothing could be further from the truth. However, criticism of what one person said is vastly different from a critical discussion of ideas. FYI, applying a critical eye to one side certainly looks one-sided, but that's just my opinion. It is a shame that a call for a more substantial discussion should provoke such ire.
75953. John Hartz at 13:51 PM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the solar segment of the renewable energy industry in the US is not fairing well in competition with China as evidenced in: “U.S. losing clean-energy race? Solar maker Solyndra bankrupt,” McClatchy News, Aug 30,2011 To access this article, click here. This article includes a graphic of US Trade in Solar Panels from year 2000 thru 2010
75954. John Hartz at 13:50 PM on 1 September 2011
       Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change
       I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the solar segment of the renewable energy industry in the US is not fairing well in competition with China as evidenced in: “U.S. losing clean-energy race? Solar maker Solyndra bankrupt,” McClatchy News, Aug 30, 2011 To access this article, click here. This article includes a graphic of US Trade in Solar Panels from year 2000 thru 2010
75955. Steve Case at 13:44 PM on 1 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       #28 29 30 31 Tom Curtis The GIA adjustment changes the overall slope of the time line, and gives it a boost of a bit over 0.5 mm/yr. It doesn't change the shape of the curve. That is to say it has nothing to do with acceleration rates of sea level change. The issue isn't the noise and fall at the 1883 mark, the issue is the shape of the two curves over the nearly 130 year time line, and the shape of the curve has everything to do with the question, “Is sea level rise accelerating?” But, many of your points are valid, what I did is usually described as quick and dirty back of the napkin figuring and leaves a lot to be desired and is certainly not the fine tuned product of an academic opus. Which reminds me of an analogy. Two guys buy the exact same type of car both EPA rated to get 30 mpg. One of the guys takes his car to a special mechanic for some fine tuning and now he claims to get 50 mpg. Doesn't add up. No one would believe it. (-Snip-) I’ve made that point several times now. I should give it a rest. We have two separate measuring systems, tide gages and satellites. That they report different numbers ought not be a big surprise. In a machine shop there are many ways to measure dimensions; micrometers, coordinate measuring machines, optical comparators, gage pins, bore gages, calipers, snap gages, rulers, and a host of customized gages. They all give slightly different answers and each has their own uses. Trying to get them to all give the same answers is a fool’s errand. But that's what we seem to be doing by trying to match tide gages with the satellites. And finally there’s an expression about picking the fly specks out of the pepper. Whether the rate of sea level bumps up 0.013 mm per year or not isn’t all that important. After all, if you run the numbers we’re only talking an extra 65 mm in 100 years.
       Response:

       [DB] Speculations of academic fraud snipped.

       "I’ve made that point several times now. I should give it a rest."

       Yes, you should.  Any more violations of the Comments Policy will result in automatic deletion of your entire comments.

       "After all, if you run the numbers we’re only talking an extra 65 mm in 100 years."

       You make the classic error of presuming SLR will be linear when history gives us ample examples that SLR is highly nonlinear.

       "But that's what we seem to be doing by trying to match tide gages with the satellites."

       That's what real scientists, like Dr's Church and White, do.  Amateurs struggling to replicate their work without a foundation in the science and a thorough understanding of the literature are the ones conducting the "fools errand".

75956. Eric the Red at 13:41 PM on 1 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Tom, I would agree that the most likely cause for the deceleration of SLR in the past decade is the slight cooling recently in SST.
75957. Veritas at 13:32 PM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       It would need more than a five-fold improvement in my town, and I'm not 100% convinced that personal vehicles couldn't be made sustainable with some improvements in technology and changes in our attitudes about them, but I do like the notion making it actually feasible to do without a car in more of the US. I don't think there's much of a chance we'll get people to stop driving everywhere until it becomes significantly more of a hassle to drive a car then not. I'm just happy to see the price range for sustainable options approaching competitive in spite of the huge differences in subsidies. Electric vehicles (be they cars, buses, trains, etc.) are going to be an even cleaner more sustainable option when we're not generating so much of that electricity with oil and coal.
75958. Joseph at 13:24 PM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       Muoncounter, I thought the whole idea of this website WAS to debate these very issues, instead what I am hearing from you is that I shouldn't question anything you say because it is "difficult science" and it's not "climastrology", and who am I to question them (or maybe I should say, "you"), because after all I am just a "self-appointed, self-taught and self-righteous critic"?! You are correct in one assumption, I am not a scientist, but it is this website that invited debate from the general public (and aren't you a moderator on this site? you certainly act like it), but instead it seems to me more and more that criticism is not welcome on this site. And as an FYI, no I am not going to apply a prediction tester to the other side, simply because the other side is non-scientific, and therefore their predictions have no credibility to start with. I am out.
       Response:

       [DB] "I thought the whole idea of this website WAS to debate these very issues"

       The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming.  While this site does invite discussion of the science, to characterize that discussion as a "debate" is to lend false credence/false equivalency to much of what comes out of the anti-science portion of the blogosphere (and traditional mass media, mores the pity).

       Essentially, the basics of climate science and global warming are indeed "settled science"; what is being discussed in the literature today is how much warming we can expect, how fast we can expect it, and how bad things will get.

75959. Bob Lacatena at 13:21 PM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       18, Rosco,

       You seem to dismiss convection and conduction as trivial mechanisms for energy transfer.

       No, I don't dismiss them, but I don't wave my hands and insist one must be greater than the other just because I'm more comfortable with it. Scientists have measured them all. Trenberth's energy budget (which has been duplicated with minor variations by various scientists) shows 17 W/m2 for thermals (convection), 80 W/m2 for evapotranspiration/latent heat, and 396 W/m2 for radiation. So stop waving your hands and pontificating about your understanding of the mechanisms, because those aren't the issue. What matters is the numbers.

       This isn't nonsense it is basic science.

       No, it's not science, it's throwing around scientific terms and definitions without properly putting it together.

       If you can't see that the shimmering effect of the hot air risisng off hot bitumen is due to the changes in diffraction of the air due to the convective changes in pressure then you are simply mistaken - no one can see infrared radiation but I have seen heat haze regularly.

       Go back and read what I wrote. The shimmering is from the diffraction that results from changes in air pressure, but those changes are not from convection, they are from heating due to radiation.

       If I radiate why can't oxygen and nitrogen ?

       Because you are made of a wide variety of complex molecules that in aggregate absorb and emit radiation in a broad spectrum. O2/N2 being simple diatomic molecules are extremely limited in the frequencies at which they absorb/emit, due to their limited vibrational and rotational modes, and those wavelengths are very, very high (and hence low energy) in the IR area of the spectrum. Please stop with the long, rambling diatribes attempting to demonstrate your understanding of kitchen science. You have a lot to learn before you can discuss this subject, or make an objective judgment about climate science. Until you do learn more, you are wasting everyone's time. Do not post discussions of this here again. If you insist on doing so, please put it on an appropriate thread. This thread is for discussions of the greenhouse effect on Venus. Moderators, please take notice.
       Moderator Response:

       [DB] "Moderators, please take notice."

       Duly noted...and very correct.

75960. DSL at 13:18 PM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco, do you promise? because I can't tell you how many times I've seen solid science arrayed against doubt, and doubt just ignore it. You might start here, and post further comments there as well.
75961. Rosco at 12:53 PM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Composer99 - sorry I don't understand what you are driving at - I know the sun is the source of almost all energy in our solar system ? The fusion reactions in the sun generate energy - we all agree on that one. Sphaerica lets discuss latent heat :- When a gram of water evaporates it absorbs ~2500 joules of energy without increasing in temperature -hence the term "latent" heat - more obvious when water boils at 100 C - water absorbs ~2500 joules per gram of energy without increasing in temperature while converting to steam. In fact you have to increase the pressure of steam to get it to really useful temperatures for generation of electricity. No one can argue with this fact - it is well documented. When 1 gram of CO2 absorbs 2500 joules what happens ? Well, seeing it does not undergo any phase change it must increase in temperature in proportion to its specific heat. Surely you can't argue with that ? So with a specific heat of less than 1 joule per gram this ~2500 joules must raise the CO2 to over 2500 degrees C. If anyone can show me some documented proof that this is incorrect I'll be happy to read it. As water vapour is approximately 60 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2 (0.04% X 60 = ~2.4% water vapour) each gram is carrying enough an amazing amount of energy that would raise the temperature of the 0.04% of the atmosphere to 60 X 2500 degrees. How lucky we are to have water. My point is that we observe the effects of the latent heat everytime we see rain, watch a spectacular storm etc. All that energy from the surface of the oceans is convected high in the atmosphere and released to space. You seem to dismiss convection and conduction as trivial mechanisms for energy transfer. Well the latent heat example shows how unlikely it is that radiation accounts for other than a minor role in energy transport on earth - sure it is the only way in or out but on earth it is relatively insignificant. I say again a car's radiator works by conduction/convection. Hurricanes and tornadoes work by convection not radiation. You can work on your car while the engine is hot despite the radiation from it but accidentally touch and you'll burn. This isn't nonsense it is basic science. I've seen criticisms of the pressure / volume / temperature relationships as a mechanism to explain the difference between Earth and Venus atmospheres. These relationships are basic science that is demonstrable with everyday examples. An internal combustion engine uses these principles. Combustion releases heat which expands the mixture in the cylinder driving the piston down - radiation has nothing to do with this - it is the thermal expansion by the rapid oxidation of the fuel mixture. "How does a glowing ember cool... by radiating the heat, or by conduction, heating all of the air around it purely through contact?" Firstly I never denied radiation transfers energy - I simply say that on earth in our atmosphere it is almost inconsequential. Sure it is the only energy input to the earth but having warmed the earths surfaces - land and oceans - radiation plays only a minor role. The energy from the sun is wayyyy more powerful than the radiation the earth emits - this is obvious. Radiating the heat is a small part of it. Convection is the main reason. The air warms and rises rapidly taking energy with it and is replaced by colder air which does the same. Why do you think a flame rises up and flickers ? It is the rapid oxidation products - CO2 among them - which contain the heat of combustion rapidly riding the thermal set up by convection and being replaced by cooler air which is again heated and rises until all combustion ceases. You can prove this for yourself - put your fonger near the side of a candle flame and you'll feel a bit of radiation. Place your hand above the flame where the real heat transfer mechanism is operating and you'll be visiting the emergency room. If you really believe that the bulk of the atmosphere isn't heated primarily by conduction and convection and doesn't radiate according to its temperature then you are simply mistaken. Give me one example where I can prove radiation transfers heat more than conduction/convection on earth - just one. I've been quite near the lava in hawaii but I wouldn't touch it. If you can't see that the shimmering effect of the hot air risisng off hot bitumen is due to the changes in diffraction of the air due to the convective changes in pressure then you are simply mistaken - no one can see infrared radiation but I have seen heat haze regularly. If I radiate why can't oxygen and nitrogen ? And as they obviously do how are we to differentiate their radiation from the much smaller constituents of the atmosphere by volume or weight. If someone can prove my postulations wrong I'm more than open to listen.
       Response:

       [DB] "If someone can prove my postulations wrong I'm more than open to listen."

       You haven't proven this yet.  In actuality, you are well off-base with your misconceptions.  I would recommend actually studying a text on radiative transfer and working through the problems therein in lieu of continued postulating about things you lack a good grounding in.

75962. schmoepooh at 12:43 PM on 1 September 2011
       How We Know Recent Global Warming Is Not Natural
       A quote from apiratelooksat50 at 02:04 AM on 8 February, 2011 "However, it takes a leap of faith to abandon the repetitive, observed natural climate changes over the history of the Earth (both on the short and long scales) in favor of climate change wholly induced by the actions of humanity." Faith has nothing to do with it. The variables that can be attributable to natural historical variation have been taken into account. The anthropogenic component equates convincingly with increased CO2 levels actually measured. Bear in mind that felling of forests is also a factor. Both factors are the result of human activity.
75963. scaddenp at 12:00 PM on 1 September 2011
       GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
       Well Eric, I am concerned about your "cavalier dismissal of property rights" of those property holders affected by AGW (eg by flooding, drought, sealevel rise etc.) At the core of libertarian thought is that citizens are rights-respecting and yet you have not answered on the question of how to resolve the rights conflict. Not on climate, not on things like air pollution or passive smoking in the earlier thread. I assume that you are similarly horrified by the government interventions on asbestos? I simply don't understand your local government issues. For local government, their only concern is provision of services so surely straightforward translation of revenue to services. Here anyway, all local body elections come down to the tension between what services people want versus what they are willing to pay for. I gather you have different views on the service level to the majority of voters but then the cornerstone of democracy is the tolerance by the minority of the mandate of the majority. Back on topic - nice comments about your "HOA" (Home owners association??? - rare entities here) but do they translate to rest of country? Even so, with eliminating heating and all your cars (really want that?) you are still not even at the half way mark of reduction required. Only the hydro plant could get your further. It seems absurd to trying to turn lifestyle upside down to gain energy reductions because you cant accept any elimination of coal on principle. "crank up carbon taxes and see what happens" is not my proposal. My proposal is ban new coal generation outright (gives coal property owners a long time to change) which is much more straightforward and cheap to administer but I can imagine somewhat too leftest for the US. You have described what you dont want in carbon tax but still seem open to a pigovian tax like Hansen's. If a tax is revenue neutral, how can you suppose this would be economic armageddon? - that is unsubstantiated alarmism. Anyway, what I am asking is what effective policy, for whole country, you would support under my hypothetical case? While you struggle to find something effective within your political values, then I continue struggle to believe your skepticism is anything but politically motivated.
75964. Pete Dunkelberg at 11:54 AM on 1 September 2011
       CO2 is just a trace gas
       Badgersouth @ 13 (link to sod) - The commenters there show Dunning Kruger anger (tm). Evidently sod attracted them from a certain other place, and takes it all calmly. Meanwhile here at Skeptical Science this post is quite good and ought to answer the point. For my part I always thought the "It's a trace gas" argument to be dense. Nature has no feelings, so calling something a belittling name has no physical effect. But perhaps the underlying problem is that some people have no idea how CO2 has its effect. Then when certain professional miscreants get them angry, they are not able to learn. Sod's detailed explanation had no effect on those who think they already know science, but are now (without realizing it) ruled by their anger. Finally, I wonder if a better approach is to just show that our surface environment is much warmer than the Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts, and ask how they explain it.
75965. muoncounter at 11:52 AM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       Joseph#156: "wasn't much of a cherrypick." The point was this: You found a single example that showed you what you wanted to hear -- and you generalized it to 'there's a disconnect!' That's the 2nd part of the definition of cherrypick I cited. It is this logic that turns 'they got the weather wrong yesterday,' into 'they sure can't say anything about climate.' "global warming of 1 deg over a decade is the same as global warming of 1 deg over a century?" Your example was a glacier melting in a specific year vs another in the same decade or two. Please avoid these giant leaps from the small to the global. This is not 'the science of predictions,' which we usually call 'climastrology.' There are no crystal balls or tea leaves in climate work. This is difficult science, worked by serious folks who see their every word picked over by self-appointed, self-taught and self-righteous critics - who hardly ever have to answer for their own words. Instead, the scientists often have their own words turned against them. BTW, have you applied your prediction-tester to Bastardi's cooling forecast? To Watts on this year's minimum Arctic sea ice extent? If you want to keep a prediction scorecard, please be sure to check both sides of the fence. So yes, let's engage in more substantial issues. If you don't respect that, so be it. We'll let the readers decide on where the disconnect lies for themselves.
75966. Tom Curtis at 11:48 AM on 1 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve Case @19, below is the HadSST2 measure of global sea surface temperature for the period of January, 1990 to December, 2011. As you can see, the convex shape of the 60 month mean is not a function simply of one or two years at the start, or just 1998 (and is clearly not a function of 2011, which is not included. Your attempt to obviate my criticism @11 clearly ignores the duration of Pinatubo's cooling effect, and the El Nino's of 2003, 2005, and 2007, and the La Nina's of 2008 and 2009. The fact that it is so easy to pick out a physical cause of the slightly decelerating sea level rise of over the period 1992-2011, and that that cause is sea surface temperatures should not be giving you confidence for the future. More importantly for the present discussion, it should reinforce in you the need to only consider the trends which are statistically significant.
75967. Sceptical Wombat at 11:41 AM on 1 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
       Thanks dana
75968. Tom Curtis at 11:34 AM on 1 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve Case @25 Final comments: Just to pick up on two minor points: 1) You have the units wrong on the the y axis of your graph. 2) The large gap between your graph and that by Church and White is almost entirely a consequence of a >50 mm fall in sea level in 1883 in your graph. You may want us to believe that was a genuine fall in sea level, rather than an artifact of your shoddy methods, but we are not that easily conned. When that obvious artifact of noise in your chart exists, however, it is disingenuous to call attention to the gap between your chart and Church and White's as if that gap some how called Church and White's analysis into question.
75969. Joseph at 11:29 AM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       Muoncounter#153 Every posting that rebutted mine that contained a single link to prove the poster's position was a cherrypick as well, but did anyone point that out? I didn't go to great lengths to find this article, it took me literally 1-2 minutes with a single google search to find this article. So it wasn't much of a cherrypick. So you are saying it is a strawman because the substantive issue in the prediction is the melting of the glacier not so much the time it takes to melt??? So global warming of 1 deg over a decade is the same as global warming of 1 deg over a century? Why shouldn't we keep score of the predictions as it relates to their timeline? And how is this not a substantive issue? I would say that us, (yes US!), AGW proponents have the obligations to keep score much less the willingness! I would have expected you to say something to the effect that, yes Hardy messed up, but if you took all the predictions as a whole then the number of studies who got it right vs. the ones who got it wrong is 10-1, or something to that effect. Then I would have expected you to give me a link showing this (I would love to see this, btw). That answer I would have respected, instead of brushing this off by this, "It is far more productive if we engage in substantial issues", i.e. "let's the change the subject" business. If anything this answer just reinforces any reader's belief in a disconnect between the predictions and the current trends
75970. skywatcher at 11:29 AM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       #150, 152 Joseph, we don't base our observations on a single glacier, see for example this post most glaciers worldwide are retreating and that trend is accelerating. Note John Cook's second-last sentence. A vast amount of information underpins the projections, and the tendency has been for the IPCC to err on the conservative side in their projections.
75971. scaddenp at 11:28 AM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       For some credibility, please pick a prediction from AR4 that you think is overstated (ie something with reputable science behind it). Also, the statements about what is happening at this time are not full of doom & gloom. Furthermore 2 key ones (sealevel rise and arctic ice loss) show how conservative the predictions were. What are the indicators that you would choose, that if went bad would make you say "OMG - I've been an idiot"? The two for me (currently doing okay but expected to go bad) would be world mortality and global grain production. The problem is that by the time you see a bad 10 year trend in these, a lot of people would have suffered. You want to wait till the house is burning down?
75972. Tom Curtis at 11:24 AM on 1 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve Case @25: @7 you said:

       "I intend to ignore any further critiques you have about the PSMSL data as it's not the issue."

       I responded @8:

       " If you want to introduce your chart as evidence, you need to defend its construction. If you don't want to defend its construction, you ought to withdraw it. As it stands, however, it appears you want to make use of a graph in which artifacts of the data will introduce a very large amount of noise."

       Well, it turns out that you do want to introduce your chart as evidence, and have done so @15, @18, and @25. However, you show no inclination to defend it against previously mounted criticisms which show the chart to be dominated by noise. Rather, you falsely call it a "straight forward analysis", using a label rather than a defense of your methods to suggest the chart is actually worth anything. So let's compare Church and White's analysis with your supposedly straightforward analysis: Quality Control: Church & White - extensive vetting for spurious trends in the data; Case: None. Grouping: Church and White: Data grouped by cell with a maximum 250 km radius from the center point of the cell; Case: Data grouped by arbitrary 'coastlines' with no consistent principle in determining coastlines applied across all data. Specifically, all nations are given a separate coast line no matter how small. Some coast lines ared divided by necessity of contiguous status. Thus Canada has two coast lines, one for the west coast, and one for the east and north coast. In contrast the US has separate coastlines for the contiguous Gulf and East coast coastlines. Australia has just one coastline for the entire continent plus offshore islands, while the US has separate coastlines for not just the Gulf and east coast, but also for the west coast, for Alaska, for Hawaii, and for the Aleutians. Correction poor geographical sampling: Church and White:

       "Our approach relies on resolving large-scale ocean variability by using as many tide gauges as possible to estimate the global distribution of sea level for each month/year between 1950 and 2000. We use sea surface height anomaly satellite altimeter data to estimate the global covariance structure as expressed in empirical orthogonal functions (EOFs). We then estimate the amplitude of these EOFs by using the relatively sparse but longer tide gauge records. The estimated (reconstructed) global distribution of sea level for each month is obtained as the sum of these EOFs.

       Case: None Correction for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment: Church and White: Applied; Case: None. Correction for large scale changes in air pressure: Church and White: Reverse Barometric applied; Case: None. Personally, I do not think geopolitics to be the most straightforward way to group data in determining mean sea level. That is, however, the basis of your method. Beyond that, what distinguishes your method is the assumption that the silting of estuaries, land slumping or subsidence etc are of no relevance in measuring sea levels. So while your method can be called simplistic, it is false to call it straight forward.
75973. muoncounter at 11:10 AM on 1 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       Norman#106: Nicely done! You seem to be suggesting a strong anthropogenic influence over weather conditions. It is nice to hear such an effective rebuttal to 'its not us.' You're also showing direct evidence that high clouds (formed from contrails) are a strong positive feedback: Cloud cover subsequently decreased in the west and increased over much of the eastern half of the country during the next two days, producing predominantly negative three-day OLR changes in the east and positive values in parts of the west. To rephrase, increased clouds in the east resulted in less OLR, ie, more heat retained. That nicely rebuts such silliness as Spencer's magic clouds and the general desire to hang a negative feedback on clouds (largely because its cooler on cloudy days). BTW, that also pops the balloon of the GCR argument: if GCRs do in fact stimulate high cloud nucleation (which is not proven), then by the same logic those high clouds contribute to warming, not cooling. You've shown that Svensmark and his adherents have it all backwards! And certainly there can now be no doubt that sensitivity is quite high, as there were measurable temperature differences for what must be considered a relatively small causal agent. But your 'manmade but not CO2' doesn't do much. Three days with few contrails do not a multi-year trend make.
75974. scaddenp at 10:53 AM on 1 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       'We have seen the models founder at the decadal time scale... " Climate models suck at predicting the stock market and predicting tomorrow's weather too, because , well because they are climate models - eg models to predict 30 year averages. Your point?
75975. Tom Curtis at 10:46 AM on 1 September 2011
       Sea level rise is decelerating
       Steve Case @25: Preliminary points: 1) Records where not eliminated if they where longer than 2 years in length (as you, perhaps mistakenly, indicate), but because they were shorter than two years after 1 or 2 month gaps in the record had been infilled. The obvious reason is that a 2 year record tells you almost nothing about long term trends. 2) The 1063 records eliminated on the basis of redundancy where eliminated because they where duplicate records. 3) The 95 records eliminated because they where outside the Topex coverage where eliminated because the study was an explicit comparison of the tidal gauge and Topex data. Such a comparison can only be sensibly be made over the area in which Topex gathers data. 4) Likewise the data eliminated because it was more than 250 km from one of the Topex grid points was eliminated because it could not be directly compared to Topex data. 5) Contrary to your claim, and as you yourself calculated, there were 713 records eliminated because disagreement among closely located tide gauges, physical location, very noisy data, or very high trends provided reason to believe the tide gauge was measuring unusual local circumstances (subsidences, siltation, etc) rather than global changes in sea level. That the number eliminated for each of these reasons is not recorded separately is irrelevant. 6) No records where eliminated by combination. Combination means that "Where there were multiple tide gauges for a single grid point, the change in height at each time step were averaged to produce a single time series." If we are to call that "elimination" then when you took averages of data for each coast line, you 'eliminated' over 1033 records when you took averages by coastline (see your @7) I need to make these preliminary points to clean up your tendentious and inaccurate description of Church and White's method.
75976. DSL at 10:35 AM on 1 September 2011
       Mythic Reasoning about Climate Uncertainty
       Nope, but I'll take some dried figs if you have any left. They help loosen the, uh, "isms." Baked peaches do that too, and I just had some. Here, I'll demonstrate: trunkmonkey: "Postmodernism reacted that emergent phenomena in complicated systems made them irreducable, at least in their behavior." That's just another way of saying "structures are not absolute." It's Marx correcting Hegel. Where do you go from there? You imply that models are pointless because they are structures trying to represent complex systems featuring emergent phenomena. So what? Is that an attack on models? If so, from what position do you attack? Do you have anything better to offer? Or do you wander around without a plan all day? Or you have a plan but it causes you great angst because you know it's ultimately pointless? So, yes, it was a joke, but probably not the kind that gets a laugh from the audience. Post-structural thought has been around for a long time (Chaucer exhibits it on occasion). It is only the condition of postmodernity that allows it to gain a special importance. That importance is in the service of rejecting any sort of metanarrative (God, Nation, ethical systems) that might place obligations on the individual as the individual operates (tries to survive) under the current mode of production. It works to break down socially-constructed morality, which can then be replaced with the morality of the 'free market' (Objectivism, in one form). The individual ends up being the ultimate source of truth, choosing whatever truths serve individual interests. And, I must say, what's up with that?
75977. skywatcher at 10:28 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Rosco, your misconceptions are as Sphaerica says in #12, taking you in spectacularly wrong directions. I can only suggest that you put those misconceptions aside, open your mind and do some reading. It reads like you have a vague idea of many of the basics, but either can't or won't put them together in the right order. You'll find a lot of useful information around this site, of course! But for some other reading suggestions: Read Sphaerica's link to Spencer Weart. I'd suggest Science of Doom, which has a very good series called CO2: an Insignificant Trace Gas, as well as articles about back radiation and about the greenhouse effect. I'd also recommend Richard Alley's superb lecture at AGU 2009 on why CO2 is the most important control knob on our climate. You'll find, if you keep your mind open enough to rational explanation and fight your preconceptions, that there is nothing about the CO2 greenhouse effect that is in contravention with physics. It's actually an outcome of physics.
75978. dana1981 at 10:27 AM on 1 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
       Sure Wombat, happy to. The relevant formula is dT = a*dF where dT is the change in temperature, a is the climate sensitivity parameter, and dF is the change in radiative forcing. In the SAR case, for dF = 4.37, they found dT = 2.5°C. So if we plug that into the formula: a = dT/dF = 2.5/4.37 = 0.57°C per W/m2 So for every 1 W/m2 forcing, the model results in 0.57°C warming. If we then use that climate sensitivity parameter to calculate what temperature change we would expect from the forcing associated with a doubling of CO2 (3.7 W/m2), we get: dT = 0.57 * 3.7 = 2.12°C What the SAR did was to overestimate how much of an energy imbalance is caused by a doubling of CO2. As a result, they also overestimated the temperature change in their model resulting from that doubling of CO2. And so they thought their model was more sensitive to CO2 doubling than it actually is. An important distinction is that they overestimated the model sensitivity specifically to doubled CO2, because they overestimated the forcing associated with doubled CO2. But the sensitivity parameter (0.57°C per W/m2) remains unchanged. Clear as mud?
75979. Buzzook at 10:27 AM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       #9 Ahhh, but if there were NO cars, and public transport improved five-fold as a result, you would indeed be able to 'hop-on-hop-off' public transport to complete your errands. Personal vehicles are an unsustainable indulgence, purely because of the resources they consume, never mind the degredaton of the atmosphere, climate, vehicle accidents and hospital costs, etc etc etc. But yeah, in the ABSENCE of an effective public transport system, EV works 'better' than ICE.
75980. Composer99 at 10:27 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       

       I don't dispute that CO2 absorbs infrared energy and increases in temperature. But an equilibrium point is reached where input equals output and no further heating can take place without further energy input.

       Perhaps you are not familiar, then, with that giant ball of burning gas one sees in the sky during the day? The one that is constantly bombarding the Earth (daylight side) with energy...
75981. muoncounter at 10:21 AM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       Joseph#152: By definition, a cherry pick is the use of a small subset of the available data, usually to draw a pre-conceived conclusion. This is only a 'disconnect' for people who keep score based on who said what when. Those who understand the comment made by Hardy can see that such a prediction is justifiably updated by more complete analysis. This is the normal process of science or for that matter any predictive endeavor. BTW, setting up a misrepresentation of another's argument so it can then be shown as a potential 'disconnect' is known as a strawman. In this case, 'they got the date the glacier would melt wrong' is a strawman. It is far more productive if we engage in substantial issues.
75982. dana1981 at 10:20 AM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Pete - some days I just ride my bicycle. Where I live it never gets quite cold enough that I can't ride my moped. Sometimes I ride in the rain, and sometimes I carpool with my wife if it's raining too hard.
75983. Pete Dunkelberg at 10:13 AM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       dana @ 3, "I commute to work most days on an electric moped...." I'm interested in getting something like that. So what stops you other days? Rain? Cold? Both?
75984. Bob Lacatena at 10:13 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       14, Rosco, Latent heat: As long as water vapor stays as vapor, it remains as kinetic energy in the water vapor. When that water vapor condenses, that energy is passed to other molecules in the surrounding atmosphere. This serves to transfer some energy from the surface higher up in the atmosphere, an amount that has been measured and quantified and is roughly 1/5th that which is transferred through radiation. What's your point? Badly burnt: You do this a lot. You seem to have a personal need to correlate all concepts to personal experience, and then you make the mistake of performing value comparisons based on such experiences. That you can be burnt by a hot object says nothing. How does a glowing ember cool... by radiating the heat, or by conduction, heating all of the air around it purely through contact? If you put your hand near but not on a burning ember, do you feel the heat? How, if you aren't touching it? No, it's not because it has heated the air (it has, but not that much, and you wouldn't feel the heat emanating from the object). You are directly feeling the radiation. When the sun hits your face, do you feel the heat? Radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen: I didn't say they don't get hot, that's absurd. I said they don't appreciably emit that heat as radiation in quantities and time scales that are relevant to the current atmosphere, as compared to CO2 and H2O. In a pure O2/N2 atmosphere that radiation would be the only way that the atmosphere can cool. In our atmosphere, O2/N2 act instead as a buffer. Why do you think down vests are so warm? Why is all insulation primarily pockets of air? Shimmering: You're doing it again. You can see it, so it must be more important than radiation. This is not a viable or effective argument. But, interestingly, you are wrong here. The air near the ground is being heated through radiation which is absorbed by the H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere, and then conveyed to the O2 and N2 through collisions. More heating occurs closer to the surface, and enough to cause changes in air density which produce the shimmer. This is not occurring through conduction, even if you imagine that to be the case because the layer of air is close to the surface. Radiators: Proving that conduction exists does not prove that it is the primary mechanism in heat transfer in the atmosphere. Again, you are wedded to what is familiar to you, and dismissing anything that is too abstract for you to consider. This mindset is a trap. Oxygen/nitrogen radiation: Look up the numbers. Look at this spectral analysis and this one. Really, do you think science is done by just squinting one eye and sort of guestimating everything? Everything radiates in proportion to its temperature: No!!! This is true on a macroscopic level, but it is not that simple. On the molecular and subatomic level, quantum mechanics interferes. Things absorb and radiate only in specific wavelengths, and that greatly complicates the interactions. You have a lot of studying to do. This is a denier site, but a lot of the science is very good and accurate. Try starting there. To imply otherwise is in contravention of physics.Okay, this is getting silly. If you have real questions and want to learn, I will help. If you want to just spout nonsense and dig in your heels, do it on your own... but find the proper thread for it. This one isn't it.
75985. Sceptical Wombat at 10:09 AM on 1 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
       However, the SAR used a radiative forcing of 4.37 W/m2 for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The IPCC TAR updated this value five years later with the value which is still in use today, 3.7 W/m2 (see TAR WGI Appendix 9.1). Since the SAR overestimated the energy imbalance caused by a doubling of CO2, they also overestimated the climate sensitivity of their model. You appear to be saying that the SAR overestimated the climate sensitivity of their model and therefore underestimated the global temperature change. This is a bit counter intuitive. I'm sure that there is a perfectly good explanation but could you please elucidate for my benefit?
75986. Joseph at 09:55 AM on 1 September 2011
       It's not bad
       No cherry picking, as a matter of fact your posting goes to my point! When scientists don't have all the data or all the variables and they make forecasts based on that, then that disconnect is created. Again this is not to say that global warming is not happening, or is not melting Kilimanjaro's ice, it just says that maybe there is a disconnect between currents trends vs. projections.
75987. Norman at 09:52 AM on 1 September 2011
       The human fingerprint in the daily cycle
       Here is some actual empirical evidence giving a reasonable alternative explanation for the decrease in DTR over the last few decades. It is manmade but not CO2 emissions. The effect of decreased DTR is most noticeable over land areas and this article also explains this. Scientific explanation for decrease in DTR. From this article my DTR change for Omaha Nebraska (Post # 101) as compared to the long term norm makes a lot of sense now.
75988. Rosco at 09:28 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Sphaerica Where does the latent heat go ? If radiation is so powerful why is it you get really badly burnt when you touch a hot object while you can stand near it for long periods ? What special properties do oxygen and nitrogen possess that allows them to defy the laws of physics ? You don't believe oxygen and nitrogen get hot ? Then hot air balloons are really hot "greenhouse gas" balloons ? What is the shimmering you see rising from hot bitumen during the day - radiation ? I don't think so - it is diffraction caused by the rapid movement of heated air convection reducing the local viscosity of the air through convection. Even a car's radiator doesn't work by "radiation" - it works by conduction as the water absorbs the engines heat and then by conduction and convection as the air passes over it. Stop the car, leave the motor running and disconnect the fan and see how effective radiation is at removing heat. I'll see you at the mechanics as you try to explain why it shouldn't have destroyed itself through overheating. How do you know oxygen and nitrogen don't radiate in relevant amounts ? So when I'm in the shade in the desert with air temperatures of 45 +C and low humidity it is radiation it is the 0.04% CO2 which is heating me up ? Everything radiates in proportion to its temperature - including oxygen and nitrogen and CO2. The theoretical explanations of bond stretching and vibrations associated with triatomic molecules does not imply they radiated in excess of their temperatures - it is an attempt to explain their absorbtive properties nothing more. To imply otherwise is in contravention of physics.
75989. Bob Lacatena at 09:10 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       10, Rosco, I would very, very highly recommend reading Spencer Weart's A Discovery of Global Warming. Really. It is very worth the time.
75990. Bob Lacatena at 09:06 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       10, Rosco,

       I get the geometry I just think it isn't relevant for a dynamic system.

       This is a nonsensical statement. I'll be happy to help explain it, but you need to be a little more clear. I don't think you truly understand the geometry, or how it applies, if you think it's not relevant.

       I believe...

       Look out for everything like this. Fuzzy, unquantified, "common sense" thinking is dangerous. It leads to very false but easily accepted conclusions. "I believe" means "I don't really, perfectly understand, but it feels good." But obviously what you are saying in this case is true, the planet does store energy in the day and release it slowly at night. But what's your point? How does it apply? Again, the greenhouse effect is what permits this to happen effectively. Look at the moon, where the moment the sun sets, the temperature plummets. It's wrong to just think it "stores enough" in a vague, wave-of-the-hand sense.

       ...but from the whole atmosphere - oxygen and nitrogen included - which primarily becomes heated by conduction and convection...

       No. This is wrong, and a common denial trope, putting everything on conduction and convection, without quantification, because they are effects you can feel and are familiar with. Oxygen and nitrogen do not radiate in relevant amounts, because of their molecular properties. Radiation far outweighs convection and conduction. This has all been quantified. There's no reason to just visualize it the way you'd like.

       ...the latent heat water vapour carries...

       No. Water vapor doesn't just carry around latent heat in the fashion you imply, and the specific heat of water is not relevant in this instance. Again, you're throwing around scientific terms without properly applying them. Specific heat is not a factor. Latent heat is only relevant for the transfer of some heat from the surface to the troposhere. You have a lot of misconceptions... enough knowledge to be dangerous, so to speak. I suggest you take the time to visit reputable science and climate science sites to learn this properly, beginning from the understanding and position that you do not know and you need to open your mind and learn. If you close your mind by thinking that what you know (and misunderstand) applies (because you misapply it), you will be stuck where you're at.
75991. Rosco at 09:01 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       Sphaerica "The greenhouse effect works exactly by trapping and accumulating heat, as you well know" I don't know that at all. Nothing else in the Universe accumulates heat without an energy input. Everything is perpetually cooling down and the hotter it is the faster the rate of cooling - at least I think that is what Newton said. I don't dispute that CO2 absorbs infrared energy and increases in temperature. But an equilibrium point is reached where input equals output and no further heating can take place without further energy input. So with no other energy source the maximum "blackbody" temperature of Venus with 2644 W/sq m input is about 465 K. It is remarkable that as the space probes passed through Venus's atmosphere they recorded temperature and pressures that are approximately what one would expect compared to Earth. This factor is the fourth root of 1.91 - 1.176.
75992. jonicol at 08:44 AM on 1 September 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       Adelady, I think you may be under a slight misapprehension regarding the rainfall event in Toowoomba. This was NOT the first time by any means that such rainfall has occurred there. The flooding was because of major changes in re-engineered creeks, the insertion of smaller pipes to drain some (one in particular) park areas. Older residents remember flooding as large as 2011 but of course in earlier days the information was much more contained in the area. Grantham was a new experience but the toal anmount of water was not very new and later constructions of raods and railways played a large part in directing higher flooding there also. A second impoortant point about the Brisbane area flooding is that it was all much les, as in some metres lower, than in 1843 and other earlier years of the 19th century and also than both 1893 and 1974. This is in spite of the fact that construction of roads and buildings has caused very different channelling of the water. Other flooding in Queensland, while quite significant, was certainly NOT unprecedented. John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com Brisbane
75993. Veritas at 08:35 AM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Re #7: Ah, but for some of us public transportation is not a valid option while an EV would be fantastic. For instance, my commute is only about 10 miles each way, but due to the lousy bus system out here it would take me nearly an hour and two different buses each way to commute via mass-transit. Add to that the need to run errands after work (imagine trying to make 2-3 stops with buses this bad) and the public transportation option is simply out of the question. On the other hand, were I able to afford to swap out my current 30mpg compact for a Volt I'd rarely even use the ICE and it wouldn't inconvenience me in the slightest.
75994. jonicol at 08:31 AM on 1 September 2011
       2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?
       It is fairly obvious that if the global climate is in a particular condition, such as occurred during each of the ice ages, during the Maunder minimum and the Medeaval Warm period, or during each of the Holocene periods between the coldest years, that ALL of the countries on earth will experience similar changes as shown in Figure 1. What is also remarkable from that figure is that most of the countries cited are in near tropical regions, whereas, the suggestions from all models supporting the IPCC has been, I believe, that the colder latitudes will show the greatest increse in temperature. Poland appears to be the only significant outlier from this observation, and it appears at the lower end of the scale. Since one of the key factors defining weather or climate, and one which is clearly measureable without much massaging, is precipitation, it is very surprising to see Figure 7 here being held up as a demonstration of "extreme" weather. As shown, in the last 100 years, the bunching of more "extreme" years is actually in the 1950s, with something of a decay in that condition thereafter. The peak rainfall in 2010 is only marginally higher than about 1918 and 1951 and is slightly less "extreme" than the dry year of about 1902. John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com
75995. Rosco at 08:19 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       For clarification I am not denying the physical properties of CO2 to absorb infrared radiation - I accept that without doubt. I don't claim to know why Venus is 730 K. But I do there are some claims made about the greenhouse effect that make little sense to me. Why is it valid to reduce solar insolation by a factor of 4 to calculate the "effective blackbody temperature" of a planet - especially Venus with it 200 odd earth day long day ? I get the geometry I just think it isn't relevant for a dynamic system. Parts of the earth receive way more than Kiehl & Trenberth's average 235 W/sq m. Parts get almost zero except by ocean and atmospheric circulation. I believe the oceans, and to a lesser extent the atmosphere, store enough energy during the day so that when the sun sets (or the earth turns if you prefer) and the energy really starts to escape to space the ocean and atmosphere radiate relatively slowly so that before we turn into a block of ice we get our next fix the next morning. The downwelling longwave radiation measured in the atmosphere is not only from CO2 and water vapour but from the whole atmosphere - oxygen and nitrogen included - which primarily becomes heated by conduction and convection. At 0.04% of the atmosphere CO2 radiative effect is small - real but it must be in proportion to its concentration. It has a specific heat of less than 1 J/gram. Water vapour, which is at least 60 times more abundant in the average atmosphere has a specific heat of double that but it is the latent heat water vapour carries, which CO2 doesn't, that makes it the driver of the climate - some 2400 J/gram. So - i know this is off topic slightly but it is relevant. Perhaps the water on Venus did disappear as postulated - I don't claim to know.
75996. Bob Lacatena at 08:15 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       8, Rosco,

       I realize that the claim is it accumulates but isn't that what I said in my proposal for an energy source which everyone laughed at.

       No. What you said was that it would accumulate, then you implied that this accumulation would be generative... that you could proceed to take out more energy than was being put in after it had accumulated. If you meant that we could only take out the energy that was put in, then what was your point? You described a new form of battery. The greenhouse effect works exactly by trapping and accumulating heat, as you well know, and the disparity in the numbers is not an issue. 132 can lead to 16,100, and you already answered why yourself. If the system takes in 132 every day, and emits 131.9999 every day, then after 10,000 days the temperature has raised 1 degree. Some 160,000,000 or so days later, the surface temperature reaches 730K. There's nothing at all illogical or impossible behind this. Simply declaring that you find it incredible is neither evidence nor argument, but nothing more than mere obstinacy. I find such a position to be unworthy of discussion.
75997. AuntSally at 08:13 AM on 1 September 2011
       Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions
       Why in the world does Pat Michaels have a blog at Forbes? Do they actually pay him? And even given that he has a blog, why would they let him write about renewable energy? Honestly, one could come up with about a thousand (or ten thousand) others who are far more knowledgeable. Nevermind. Forget I asked...
75998. Rosco at 07:54 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       I realize that the claim is it accumulates but isn't that what I said in my proposal for an energy source which everyone laughed at. If it is possible to accumulate energy as postulated for Venus then my proposal is equally valid.
75999. Rosco at 07:37 AM on 1 September 2011
       Venus doesn't have a runaway greenhouse effect
       The criticism of my proposal is obviously right - it can't work - you always get less out than you input - unfortunate but true. The following is from a University lecture about the greenhouse effect on Venus :- "From geometry, we can calculate the average solar flux over the surface of Venus. It is approximately 661 W/m2. Venus is very reflective of solar radiation. In fact, it has a reflectivity (or albedo) of 0.8, so the planet absorbs approximately 661 X 0.2 = 132 W/m2. By assuming that the incoming radiation equals the outgoing radiation (energy balance), we can convert this into an effective radiating temperature by invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann law (total energy = σT4). We find that T=220 K. But Venus’ surface has a temperature of 730 K!!!" Do a little reverse maths - climate scientists tell us this is right - raise 730 K to the power of 4 multiply by 5.67 by 10 to the -8 (Stefan-Boltzman) and you get a radiative flux of 16,100 W/sq m. Where does this come from when a University Professor tells me the sutface of Venus receives only 132 W/sq m ? I think this is a fair question. If it is from the greenhouse effect how did this develop initially ? 132 W/sq m couldn't possibly do it. Venus has something going on that we don't know about - probably vulcanism, possibly high nuclear radiation - who knows. But I do know Venus is closer to the sun so that it receives nearly twice the irradiation that Earth does, it rotates slowly in the opposite direction to Earth and has enormous temperatures and pressure. Sphaerica, my point is what possible sensible physical principle can explain 16100 W/sq m radiative flux from an input of a mere 132 W/sq m ? It cannot possibly be due to the the greenhouse effect which is simply that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the surface of the planet because everything in the Universe radiates proportionally to its temperature so a runaway greenhouse simply doesn't add up - 132 in 16,100 out does not add up. Even if you assume all the solar radiation of 2644 W/sq m top of Venus atmosphere made it to the surface it is still a factor of 6 out. Seriously, I do not believe a runaway greenhouse effect as supposed can possily exist as described for Venus but I am open to convincing. Can anyone offer a valid explanation how the greenhouse effect can accumulate more than 100 times the energy entering a system and contain it ? I didn't find the professors explanation very convincing.
       Moderator Response: The energy accumulated. It did not all appear at once.
76000. dana1981 at 07:28 AM on 1 September 2011
       Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: IPCC SAR
       

       "So to summarize how we can show the excellent quality of the SAR projections, we simply need adjust the slope and offset of the the SAR projections to match the observed data."

       I didn't say the SAR projections were "excellent quality". In fact I basically said the opposite:

       "The SAR projection of the warming over the past two decades hasn't been terribly accurate"

       The purpose of adjusting the slope (sensitivity) and offset (baseline) is to see what model parameters would have made accurate projections, not to say the model and parameters were accurate.

Prev  1512  1513  1514  1515  1516  1517  1518  1519  1520  1521  1522  1523  1524  1525  1526  1527  Next